Wikipedia Mixing Us In With LaRouche

If enough people get on wikipedia and edit the pages, they won't be able to continue to do edits with the goal to discredit us, like adding Lyndon La Rouche to the template of people challenging the official version of events to make us look nutty. He should not be on a 9/11 template.

As it is, that template goes on the bottom of every single page covering the "conspiracy theorists."

Just click on "Related Changes" at the top of that and it takes you to a list of the most recent changes on each of the pages listed on the "watchlist." You can see that pages which are boldface are ones they are patrolling heavily.

If they delete your edits, go to the "Discussion Page" and start a discussion on it. When you engage them it is more difficult for them to ignore you and you get to know the community.

MANY times on the issue of 9/11, receiving blank stares in return, or some version of "Larouche predicted it", I can say for sure that Larouche is no friend of 9/11 Truth, which given his ostensible hatred of Dick Cheney is quite odd. Sorry, OCTopuses, this one won't fly, and just sends Wikipedia farther down the road to irrelevance...

I'm not advocating for LaRouche. I don't know much about the man. I do know that he has written about the significance of drug money in the global economy. That is a subject which has recently become very significant in my understanding of the dynamics of what is going on.

Gen. Albert Stubblebine III was the head of U.S. Army Intelligence, INSCOM (Intelligence and Security Command), from 1981-84, during which time he launched a series of secret projects at Fort Meade, Md., involving remote viewing and other occult practices. General Stubblebine was, perhaps, the U.S. Army's most senior and loudest advocate of the full gamut of New Age warfare.

Shall I assume General Stubblebine is one of your favorite truthers?

Until I started writing this message, I had been under the, apparently mistaken, impression that Jeffery Steinberg (author of the above linked page) had contributed to the video below. But, in keeping with my low standards of scholarship, I decided to verify that, and was unable to do so. I'm not sure what to make of the claim by Marshall Thomas that Michael A. Aquino made the rank of General, but Michael A. Aquino really was in Military Intelligence, and I do believe that MindWar is a legitimate military document. Aquino really was/is involved in the Church of Satan and the Temple of Set. OK, so the stuff in this video is bloody weird:

Even stranger is that a lot of it seems to check out. So is Jeffery Steinberg a nutter?

I also know that one of the first places I encountered the idea that 9/11 was an inside job was when passing a table set up by LaRouche supporters who had a big picture of a laughing Dubya in a cowboy hat with the WTC burning behind him. At the time I cut a very wide path around them.

It is wrong to insist that LaRouche not be listed as a 9/11 Truther. Your desire to have him removed from that list is illiberal, arrogant and dishonest. And above all, it is un-American. I'm almost forced to wonder if you might have an ulterior motive.

"Tarpley's recent "attacks" on Cindy Sheehan and other anti-war activists who claim not to have signed the Kennebunkport Warning have called into question his credibility and motives among the 9/11 Truth community. And after "further attacking those questioning" the circumstances at Kennebunkport, it is doubtful that, barring a future apology to the anti-war movement, that Tarpley can save his reputation among 9/11 activists."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster_Tarpley

* Michael Woolsey
o A Colorado activist who has worked for years on 9/11 truth.
o Strives for reasoned dialog, strong evidence.
o Has the courage to discuss COINTELPRO (to understand its workings, not label individuals.)
o Site: Visibility911.com

* Cosmos
o A Bay-Area activist who I met in 2003.
o Has worked for years for 9/11 truth.
o Site: TruthAction.org

Hi. - sorry it took me so long to get back to you. Interestingly, my
colleagues reacted to your error report very similarly to the way I
reacted: they didn't quite believe it at first, and it took some
convincing. (In the end we all had to admit that you were right from
the very start and that we were being thick-headed.) In any case, we
are all in agreement now that the passage in question will be changed
to:

"Similarly, if we have three numbers B1, B2, and B3 and we find out
that for any vector A,

Ax*B1 + Ay*B2 + Az*B3 = S, (2.12)

where S is the same for any coordinate system, then it must be that
the three numbers B1, B2, B3 are the components Bx, By, Bz of some
vector B."

This correction will be added to the list of FLP Vol II Newly Reported
Errata posted on the FLP Errata page at The Feynman Lectures website,
and your name will be added to the list of FLP errata contributors (if
you have no objection).

[Note that this result is used to deduce that the gradient is a vector
from Eq. (2.13), where the role of vector 'A' is played by the
displacement between two points P1 and P2. However, since P1 and P2
are chosen arbitrarily, the displacement can be any vector, so at
least this part of the text does not require correction.]

Thanks again for your attention to detail, for taking the time to
write to us, and for your patience.